3 ms·
And there it is. We don’t know whether a non-local interpretation will lead to different, correct predictions. One of the persistent hurdles is that gravity
by nobodyandproud 6y ago
And there it is.
We don’t know whether a non-local interpretation will lead to different, correct predictions.
One of the persistent hurdles is that gravity refuses to be folded into QM (or really, QCD).
Do you absolutely know whether hidden variable couldn’t be the missing factor?
Also—because I see you didn’t catch this—it’s possible Bell’s proof is incorrect because it assumes classical logic applies in QM.
In any case we’re done.
- lisper 6y ago> We don’t know whether a non-local interpretation will lead to different, correct predictions. Yes, we do. An interpretation cannot lead to different predictions. If it did, it would not be an interpretation, it would be a new theory. > In any case we’re done. Seems so.